Dear Sir, A portion of my land which is non agricultural was acquired by the Govt.of Kerela for construction of a bridge in 2017. During this time they had verbally mentioned that this was tax free.  They gave me the compensation for the land acquired, but now I am being told that I have pay capital gain tax for this. Can i just ignore this and avoid paying tax for this compulsory acquisition of non agricultural land? This is really unfair that the govt. takes land forcefully from people and then we are forced to pay tax on compensation given by the govt. due to the loss incurred for us. Please advise on this.

read more

Dear Experts I have filed VSVS 2020 scheme for AY 2017-18 and paid all dues, form-4 issued to me, now department ask 25 % surcharge on unexplained money since while preparing the computation of income the surcharge @ 25% not levied  and the agriculture income was not considered for rate purpose in computing the tax. A order under section 154/147/142(1) issued to me and demand under section 156 for tax with interest and penalty. I ask to experts that what remedy remain for me, can I challenge this order before Commissioner Appeal or since I have adopted VSVS 2020 then I have not option to pay surcharge without interest and penalty because interest and penalty not considered in VSVS scheme.

read more

Assessee is an Individual engaged in the retail business and disclosing his income u/SEc. 44AD of the Income tax. Assessee has made the booking of flat with builder. On the basis of some noting on the loose paper found during the course of search with the builder and on the basis of his statement U/Sec. 132(4) about acceptance of On Money from flat holders, Notice U/Sec. 153C was served. Assessee filed returns for 6 A.Y. and asked for the copies of seized papers, statement of builder and opportunity of cross examination. However the opportunity of cross examination the builder does not turn up and A.O. provided the declaration given by builder stating that what ever he has said in the statement U/Sec. 132(4) and accepted by him is truth. The Assessing officer made the addition on the basis of noting on the seized paper on account of On Money and also made addition on the ground that assessee has not explained the nature of business, type of products traded and copies of sales bills etc. in support of its income U/Sec. 44AD and therefore the claim of turnover cannot be characterized as business receipts to qualify for presumptive tax scheme and made the addition of entire turnover disclosed by assessee as unexplained receipts u/s 69A of the Act and taxed the same u/s 115BBE for the 6 years. Whether assessing officer can make addition in the assessment completed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) without having any incrementing material about his business the income for which is offered u/s 44AD ? Whether action of assessing officer adding the entire gross receipts u/s 69A on the ground that assessee has not explained the nature of business, type of products traded and copies of sales bills etc. in support of its income U/Sec. 44AD. Whether addition made on the basis of noting and the statement of builder about acceptance of on money is justified? Whether denial of opportunity to cross examine the builder on the ground of his declaration about whatever stated by him in the statement u/s 132(4) is true, is justified and legally correct ?

read more

In case of Builders 100% deduction is allowable under section 80IBA. Is there any form  to be uploded duly certified by CA like form 10CCB? To the best of my knowledge no such form is prescibed. However in the faceless scrutiny the department is asking for above form

read more

Assessee company is a private limited company and has issued its shares of Rs. 100/- each fully paid up at a premium of Rs. 80/- in the year 2010. As on today the value of the shares is Rs.500/-. the articles of association of the company has a clause for giving option in case of transfer of shares by any shareholder to the existing shareholders only. None of the existing shareholder are ready to buy the said shares from the shareholder who is interested in selling. In this situation can company being a private limited company buy back the shares at  same value on which those have been issues i.e Rs.180/-? What will be tax implication under income tax act?

read more

Assessee is a company, who has invested in a share of unlisted public company in the year 2006 having total cost Rs. 42,00,000/-. In the month of October 2020, the assessee company has received a letter informing them about capital reduction pursuant to resolution plan  approved by Hon’ble NCLT and informed that entire existing, issue, subscribed and paid up share capital of said unlisted public company held by existing share holders stands cancelled and extinguished. Therefore, the value of shares of the said unlisted public company becomes Zero. Issues: Whether the assessee company can take the benefit of indexation  of the investment in shares made in the year 2006 for Rs. 42,00,000/- and compute a long term loss after taking into account indexed cost?  Whether such loss as worked out above can be set off against the long term capital gain from sale of land in the same year ? Please Guide.

read more

Dear Sir, A company named ABC has bought 100% of the equity capital of a private limited company named XYZ. XYZ has no assets or liabilities other than a mining lease allotted by the Government. The mining lease is a valuable asset as it gives XYZ exclusive and monopoly rights. The agreement between ABC and the sellers of the shares of XYZ makes it clear that the only reason ABC has bought the shares is to acquire control over the mining lease. Can ABC claim that the amount paid for acquiring the shares should be treated as amount paid for acquiring the lease and should be allowed depreciation. In other words, the submission is that the corporate veil should be lifted and the real transaction i.e. acquiring the mining lease, should be seen for purposes of grant of depreciation. It will be greatly appreciated if your Honours can advice and also cite some case laws to support the submission. With best regards, CA Asit Baran

read more

Respected sir, Due to Covid-19 measures in Country X and India including lack of flights, I have not been able to resume my job in Country X and have been in India during the PY 2020-2021 for the period April 2020 to October 2020. I came to India in March 2020 and was to re-join duty in Country X in April 2020. Due to the suspension of international flights from India (and into Country X), I was unable to join duty in Country X. CBDT vide Circular No 11/2020 had clarified that for the purpose of determining the residency under Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, the involuntary stay in India from 22 March 2020 to 31 March 2020 will not count towards determining residence for 2019-2020. Assessee will remain a non-resident for income tax purposes for the financial year 2019-20, despite exceeding the 182-day stay. While this was for the AY 2020-21, a circular along similar lines was expected for AY 2021-22 also. The Ministry of Finance had also clarified that for the FY 2020-21, a circular excluding the period of stay up to the date of normalisation of international flight operations shall be issued. PIB release No 1622386 is also attached with the Circular No 11/2020 for reference. Till date, international flights to Country X have not been normalised to pre-covid levels and are a mixture of Vande Bharat and VTL schedules. Further to the trail, I have submitted a request for relief along with the required particulars in Form NR as required per Circular No 2/2021. I have been treated as Resident in Country X for the purposes of tax in 2020. I have requested CBDT to kindly issue directions to the effect that the period from April 2020 to 23 October 2020, being the time during which I was forced to stay in India due to reasons beyond my control, be excluded in computing the period of my stay in India during PY 2020-21 relevant to AY 2021-22. This is in line with the Circular No 11/2020. In view of the above, and the impending deadline for filing tax return, how should I be filing my Indian Income tax returns for the PY 2020-21 (Assessment Year 2021-22) as resident or non resident? please advice.

read more

Assessee is lady who purchase a shop from the developer. During the search action with the developer certain loose papers found which include receipt of cash payment signed by husband of the assesee. Which states that amount is paid against purchase of of some flat and number of flat is also mentioned . Assessee submitted that said flat is not purchased by the assessee and also submitted the evidence in support of the same by producing the index II which shows that the said unit is purchase by other person. AO has issued show cause to tax said amount in the hands of assessee on the ground of these seized papers and statement of develoer given at the time search u/Sec 132(4) and his stand at His application before ITSC and order of ITSC. Assessee has asked for cross examination of Deveeloper, who do not come for the same. Can assesee take stand : 1. on seized paper his name is not mentioned though the name of husband is mentioned . This paper is dumb paper so far assessee is concern as it does not name of assessee 2. assessee has not purchased the unit which is mentioned in seized papers 3. since developer has not came for cross examination, his statement should not relied up on 4. His stand taken before ITSC and order of ITSC is not binding at the assesseement of assessee please guide .  

read more

Assesseee is private limited company. In addition to Remuneration to Directors , Incentive is paid to them on the basis of profit of the company after finalization of audited accounts and immediately Tax is deducted an paid in the month of June every year. Co is received show casue Notice as to why prosecution should not be made on the ground of not deduction tax on monthly basis and delay in payment of same.  Company take a stand that since the incentive is link with finalization of accounts , it can not determined the amount of incentive and therfore there is no delay in complying the provisions of TDS and no prosecution proceedings be made against the Co and directors.  Pl guide .

read more